Michael, Michael, Michael,
The use of the word "diatribe" "junk" and so many other cliche's typically centers around whether you agree or disagree with an authors contentions.
I'm aware of your definition of "diatribe." My point is that just because you judge articles based on their politics, it doesn't mean that others do. Some people actually like to read perspectives that they don't agree with; they think it's stimulating. Sometimes they even have their minds changed. Imagine! You have said several times that you like to read different perspectives, but then you write off the whole mainstream press as diatribe. Doesn't mesh.
What distinguishes diatribe and junk from the good stuff is not point of view, it's quality. Does the author have a coherent argument? Is it well organized? Is the language clear? Are examples used appropriately. Are assumptions reasonable. Is it understandable? Are the facts right? Does it make it's case to someone who wasn't predisposed to yell "amen."
I don't see how you could agree or disagree with the Ann Coulter article. After the two introductory paragraphs, it was utterly unintelligible. Beginning with Indeed, the Left's enthusiasm for sending Elian back to Castro's Cuba borders on the pathological at times. Now I've been following this story pretty closely. I haven't yet seen any enthusiasm (outside of Cuba) for sending Elian back to Cuba. Her whole premise is screwy, leaving her with no way to recover.
Of course, it took nearly two years for the mainstream "thoughtful" writers to suggest Dan may have had a good point.
Dan Quayle never had a good point in his life, except for the one on the top of his head. It is beyond me why the far right continues to use him as its poster boy, except maybe that he's good looking. There are so many bright and articulate conservatives from which to choose.
The first lady, for example, famously compared the family to "slavery" (prompting Pat Buchanan to remark, even more famously: "Speak for yourself, Hillary").
If Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter said that's what Hillary said, then they are either stupid or disingenuous. As I recall, she was speaking abstractly about the historical universe of social constructs that support those who are defenseless. Families and slavery were two she identified. Duh! There's no need to twist Hillary's words to make a point. There's plenty to criticize there without being underhanded.
Demonstrating that today's "diatribe" could become tomorrow's "thoughtful analysis".
Well, I agree with you on this. The quality of discourse has certainly taken a nose dive during my lifetime. I can't imagine what will turn it around.
Karen |
